BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm not sure what you mean: that you minimize shots, taken by their C?

In this season I found two of your games where you played 2-3 and are "good enough" to mention:

(39508252)

Here you could even play TIE because his team is so imbalanced: powerful inside players and poor outside players. If you played against a more balanced team, you'd probably lose. You also won because his best inside player fouled out after only 27 fouls, so it wasn't really 2-3 zone; your offense was too goid for his defense. I think you could won this game also with M2M.

(39508220)

This match is as close as possible to say "2-3 zone isn't useless". However, again I think you won because of your better offense (5-11 for 3 with Look inside is possible only against 2-3 zone) and not because of your 2-3. Actually your 4th quarter 35-11 rally was possible only because of his 2-3 zone, so this is actually a negative campaign for 2-3.

I also noticed you played a lot of 3-2 zone against opposing LI, normally against teams with weaker offensive flow. So what does this tell us?

Last edited by Koperboy at 1/23/2012 6:48:43 AM

this tell us that 2-3 zone is good for weak teams

hehe..i didnt mean my team playin the zone..but checkin my games playin against a 23 u will see that my ex center and 300k monster fanesi didnt get that much the ball as he would get it against a man man..but like i said, its only my view..i like the 23 zone..for me that zone has as much advantages like disadvantages like every other zone that BB offers us :-)

this tell us that 2-3 zone is good for weak teams

Which you can win also with M2M since they are weak, so...

exactly...

well, has anyone of you thought how that zone works in real life?

if bb developers have wanted to create close simulation to that how zone works ir real life, both, SF and PF should have decent OD skill, because they have to guard players very close to 3pt line if the ball goes to their side of the court... as well as ID, when opponet comes closer to the basket... I somehow doubt most of us have such options... :/

well if I wanted to create maneger game, I would think about how the analogical thing in real life works...

Good point. Let´s take a real life approach:

Well, the point in real life is, that a well played 2-3 also more or less stops driving to the basket. Actually the 2-3 is REALLY meant for stopping penetration to the basket, isn´t it?

So ...

A realistic 2-3 setup requires:

- PF and SF having high OD
- C with high / solid SB
- Guards with high OD (but low ID)

And it should lead to ...

- opponent guards hitting a lower percentage of their midrange shots
- opponent Bigs getting less touches
- opponent offensive rebounding alot less effective, because your guys are always between their guys and the rim

and also

- opponent getting a bunch of open 3´s

Which of those points are achieved? Think again whether 2-3 works the way it "should", and if you use the players meant for 2-3.

On a side note:

If you think that through, the "best" way against a 3-2 would be guards cutting to the basket and with enough passing to find their fellow guard for the open three, as 3-2 should be quite vulnerable to cuts and quick drop outs after the defense is starting to move and switch.


Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 1/23/2012 4:50:17 PM

Good point. Let´s take a real life approach:

Well, the point in real life is, that a well played 2-3 also more or less stops driving to the basket. Actually the 2-3 is REALLY meant for stopping penetration to the basket, isn´t it?

So ...

A realistic 2-3 setup requires:

- PF and SF having high OD
- C with high / solid SB
- Guards with high OD (but low ID)

And it should lead to ...

- opponent guards hitting a lower percentage of their midrange shots
- opponent Bigs getting less touches
- opponent offensive rebounding alot less effective, because your guys are always between their guys and the rim

and also

- opponent getting a bunch of open 3´s

Which of those points are achieved? Think again whether 2-3 works the way it "should", and if you use the players meant for 2-3.

On a side note:

If you think that through, the "best" way against a 3-2 would be guards cutting to the basket and with enough passing to find their fellow guard for the open three, as 3-2 should be quite vulnerable to cuts and quick drop outs after the defense is starting to move and switch.

well that's is my point. if this would be true, then most of us simply don't have the right players to play zone and it means, that the problem isn't in game engine but in us and the way we want that zone to work...



Last edited by Tucis at 1/23/2012 5:54:30 PM

but there is also somth more I'd like to add..

theoreticly defensive rebounding is not increased. it's much harder to box out all attacking players, because defence is concentraiting on zone not on the players without ball.

it should be negative effect in all zone defences.. but it seems it is not..at least for. it means we have to keep in mind that it's really hard to make copletely correct algorithm for such complex process..

I disagree about the negative impact on Rebounding. Sure you might miss a rebound or two to some athletic slashing guy (especially if he´s following up his own miss) in a 2-3, but actually given that in a 2-3 zone you have three guys close to the basket who can work on the glass you should be able to control the boards rather good. At least the SF and the C should receive a certain boost over their m2m Rebounding. The PF maybe a little lower than in m2m, but that really depends on the offense scheme.

While in m2m you can drag a C out to the 3pt line, he will be where the rebound happens in 2-3 every single possession.

The SF should definately get the best rebounding ratings while playing 2-3. Next m2m, then the boxes, last probably 3-2. But it should (and probably does) depend on the offense schemes aswell. When the SF plays against a Motion team in m2m, he will most likely spend all of his time far from the basket, while playing 2-3 against a LI offense might place him within arm length of the boards.

In addition, I think the 1-3-1 isn´t working right when it comes to rebounding. The C should not receive a hit in rebounding playing that defense, as he is "really "parking" under the basket, while the PF is chasing guys up and down the baseline... but that´s just a side note.

Last edited by LA-seelenjaeger at 1/23/2012 6:25:05 PM